Survey of 854 registered voters was conducted August 3-6. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. For the survey of 310 Republican and GOP-leaning independents, the margin of error is +/- 5.5 percentage points.

Of the “Big 4″ I would guess that Palin and Gingrich have the lowest ceilings, and Huck and Romney have the highest. I would imagine Pawlenty has a potentially very high ceiling as well (no real enemies yet) but alas, is starting from a very low floor.

It didn’t look good for Sarah in the general but she sure can win the primary. There is plenty of time for her to change the voters minds. This was before her most recent of national political “victories” so some of those numbers may already be outdated. Are there any numbers in this poll with head to head matches against Romney or Huckabee versus Obama? It looks a little lopsided.

I don’t think that any significant number of undecideds are going to consider Palin. People love her or can’t stand her. She has maxed out her support. Those undecideds are going to break, most likely, between Romney, Huck, and Pawlenty.

What amazes me is the fascination the press has with Sarah. They love to report her unfavorables, but they just can’t ignore her either. She writes “death panels” on her facebook page and suddenly Obama is on the ropes.

I’m not sure I want her in the Whitehouse, but I just love her going after liberals.

Don’t worry about Pawlenty yet……He has to work on his name recognition after 2010 midterms……..We can’t expect him to start moving up much until then.

The Big Three remain the big three.

Romney not doing so good with women….I thought he was the photogenic one……maybe it would help if he was single 😉

How has she maxed her support? People have been labeling her something they think she is or something they want her to be for almost a year now. She has barely scratched the surface of showing, to the national stage, who she actually is. She had a pretty impressive week last week so in reality, barring some sort of scandal or political breakdown, she can really only go up. Everything bad about Sarah Palin is already known…she can only go up!

Writing off Sarah so early is just a sign of political inexperience and immaturity. She is a force to be reckon with… and I respect the power she has among the base. I say this as an avid Romney supporter.

“[I]f the 2012 Republican presidential primary were held today, 21% report they would back former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. 20% would support Palin, and 19% would vote for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Further down in the pack are former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich with 10%, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal with 5% and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty with 1%. 24% of Republicans including leaners are unsure. . . .

When it comes to Sarah Palin’s overall favorability, newly-minted private citizen Palin has some damage control to do. 43% of the U.S. electorate views her unfavorably compared with 37% who think positively of her. 20% are unsure.

However, Palin does have some considerable clout within her own party. Nearly three-quarters of Republicans — 73% — think well of Palin compared with 16% who have the opposite opinion.”

Your man has the highest ceiling, but that won’t mean a lot until he does something about his low floor.

Good point Jersey, they throw everything at her and she still manages to get more female support than Mr. Romney and more male support than Mr. Huckabee. It funny how people claim she is simply unelectable while she has almost saved our country from Socialism. In any event, I am proud that she is helping to promote capitalism in health care.

Yes but do you disagree with the point that in the event Huckabee bows out, this race becomes pretty tough for Romney? The undecideds, assuming a Huckabee pass, would probably be around 2-to-1 female and 1.5-to-1 non-college graduates.

Romney needs Palin and Huckabee to be his chief rivals. They both certainly have a passionate, though controversial following. The worst thing that could happen to Romney is one of them drops out, and another, more acceptable alternative (ala Pawlenty, Daniels or the like) starts to climb in the polls.

Romney is counting on being the consensus, safe choice against a potential Huckabee or Palin nomination. He is betting that non-social conservatives will rally to him if their only other choices are Huckabee and Palin.

So this polls means that Mr. Obama will win back to the White House in 2012? I don’t think this is not going to happen. I don’t believe in polls. It the mainstream news media are taken polls and they wanted to see Mr. Obama back in the White House in 2012. Hope Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, or Gov. Tim Pawlenty will be a good choice on the 2012 Republican Party ticket. Mitt Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. He is not conservative. It is just too early to tell. We need to have the Republican control both House and Senate in 2010. Mrs. Pelosi doesn’t deserved to be the Speaker of the House in 2011 again. She is a worse Speaker of the House in this history.

“They both certainly have a passionate, though controversial following. The worst thing that could happen to Romney is one of them drops out, and another, more acceptable alternative (ala Pawlenty, Daniels or the like) starts to climb in the polls.”

I cannot say that I disagree. It seems that you agree that Huckabee bowing out would be a tough pill for Romney.

Anonymous, if you look at whipping votes as a key job for the speaker of the house, then Pelosi excels in that department. One of my biggest concerns with Obamacare is Pelosi’s history with getting what she wants from the blue dogs.

#23, actually I’m not worried what Iowa and South Carolina show. Mitt Romney should win this no matter if he wins either of them or not.

Folks, it doesn’t look as if many of you are looking at this thing very thoroughly when you see this and think that she has a good chance at the nomination. Things can change, I’ll grant you that, but if things don’t change drastically, she doesn’t have a prayer of getting the nomination.

Look at the numbers: 20%, ok, close to Romney, right? Yup! Now, look at how she does agai.nst Obama. OBambi 56 –Sarah 33 ..does that look like someone that the Republicans would give the nomination to????? Heck no! As a matter of fact, she probably won’t even run, unless those numbers change drastically. Why would she? If you recall the last matchup Romney had with Obama was tied at 45% each. It may not be that high now though, because some of our fellow Republicans has been bad mouthing him now during the time we should be coming together.

At least it doesn’t look as if Pawlenty did himself any good by bad mouthing Mitt.

Dredging up what I said back four years ago: at this stage of the game polls mainly gauge name-recognition. Since Romney, Sarah, and Huckabee are both left-overs from the last election less than a year ago, they will lead the pack.

Palin is constantly in the news, more than any other potential 2012 candidate. Huckabee has his TV show. Romney appears occasionally on Interview Shows, and writes the occasional op-ed, but still manages to lead the national polls, albeit within the MOE. Health Care reform keeps him in the news.

Gingrich was well known ten years ago, but is considered old news by all but nostalgia seekers hoping for the return of “the good ol’ days”. Jindal is rumbling around, but not getting much traction since he has specifically said he is only interested in Louisiana at the moment.

Pawlenty still has a long hill to climb to become as recognizable as the big three. Exactly which niche he expects to fill that the five people ahead of him don’t, I fail to see. So his task is doubly hard because of it.

“92% of Democrats would support Obama in this hypothetical contest while 73% of Republicans would back Palin. Although President Obama does not receive a majority of Independents in this matchup, Obama does win nearly half — 49% — of this key voting group. Palin receives 34% of their support.”

Here are the problems for Sarah in a general:

73% Republicans….ladies and gentlemen…..that’s just downright terrible!! Against the worst President in our history to boot.

Loses 49% to 34% among independents. Again, that is an absolute killer.

“If you recall the last matchup Romney had with Obama was tied at 45% each. It may not be that high now though, because some of our fellow Republicans has been bad mouthing him now during the time we should be coming together.

At least it doesn’t look as if Pawlenty did himself any good by bad mouthing Mitt.” Apples and Oranges. Mrs. Palin also did better in that poll. I did not see Mr. Romney defeating Mr. Obama in the Marist poll.

Romney has to at least show up in either of those states, or else people may think he is “scared” or “running away” from Palin/ and or Huckabee. Romney needs to win in a place where he isn’t the favorite, to show that he truly is the most formidable candidate.

#31:

Pawlenty’s niche is that of the non-controversial consensus choice. If 2008 is any preview, the top-tier candidates are going to get rough. This may alienate voters and they may just decide to go with the other guy. Pawlenty should try and make himself that other guy.

Speculation… Speculation… and more speculation. The poll doesn’t really reveal anything other than confirm what we already knew. No one is dropping out anytime soon, and you would only have to poll yourself to death to be able to predict uncertainties.

Another option is to watch Intrade trends… I recall intrade.com predicting markets correctly.

I don’t disagree, but he still has to win someplace where it isn’t expected. A win for Romney in Georgia or North Carolina would look really good for him and it may even be enough to knock Huckabee out of the race. Huckabee needs the South to be solid for him if he wants to have a chance at the nomination.

“#33…Ohio…..the Marist Poll did not poll Obama vs. Romney/Huckabee” True, so I did not see them beating Mr. Obama. Yes, it is possible that M & M would beat Mr. Obama among the same people polled, but it is a bit premature to dump on Mrs. Palin when she is not being compared to M & M. The poll is thus meaningless for comparative purposes.

#44….Intrade is not realiable right now. The volume is low and somebody is working hard to manipulate it. just this last week somebody has been working really hard to push Palin up and bring down the people in front of her. You can tell by watching the volumes and the times the trades are made. Volumes usually small (1 share is most common) and the series of trades are made within seconds and minutes of each other.

When more people get involved later on the accuracy will pick up, but people are just guessing after all……as are we

“If you remember TB, the PPP way underpolled independents, which hurts Romney big time.,
because his favorables are running +20% among them.”

Uh, how would that hurt Romney in a general election matchup? Romney would not be winning indies against Obama 71-18. The more Republicans, the better for everyone because every Republicans wins Republicans by a greater margin that he or she would win indies by in a general election matchup.

So no your argument is false.

What poll shows him running +20 among indies in a general election matchup against Obama?

Marist shows Obama at 20/71 approval/disapproval among Republicans. If I were part of that 20% and approved of his performance, why wouldn’t I vote for Obama again?

I don’t think its a big deal at all that Palin is losing to Obama in this poll. Losing by 23 points is a bit of an eyebrow raiser, but even that can change with time. I do wish they would have polled Romney vs. Obama too just so we could see how he’d do instead of having to speculate, but oh well.

“For all the noise the liberals make about how weak she is…..they sure as heck are keeping an eye on her……it’s fascinating.” That I agree with. I know I have said this before that I do not think that Mrs. Palin will even run, I admit I enjoy the fact that the liberals are at least taking her seriously, whether it be her Facebook page or elsewhat. It is obviously not going to show up in the polls right now, but I know Palinites who lean towards each of the other 3 as their second choice. So in short, while I am sad that I do not think Mrs. Palin will be in thwe game, the other 3 will have to take us Palinites somewhat seriously because we hold part of the balance of power and I am somewhat happy about that.

TB, in the PPP poll, showing way too few independents hurt Mitt versus the other Republican candidates, other than probably Huckabee, about the same. Secondly, that portion of the Democrats that should have been independent helped Obama against all republican candidates, but more so Mitt and Huckabee than the others.

We also have to be careful with the favorable thing. Many Huckabee and Palin Republicans right now would give an unfavorable toward Mitt Romney, but as the one poll showed, in reality, the fewest percent of Republicans would consider Mitt to be the least likely to receive their vote. But, that’s not the case with Sarah Palin. If you recall, that same poll showed Sarah Palin as the Republican they would least likely vote for, 23% of them voting her first on that very bad list.

Each week Gallup publishes a breakdown of its presidential job approval rating, broken down by demographic groups. Here’s the latest one, released yesterday.

Among what groups has Barack Obama’s approval rating fallen to 50 percent or below? Several. First is among married people, where the president has a 47 percent approval rating. Then there are men, among whom Obama has a 50 percent rating. And people over 65, among whom he has a 48 percent rating. And white people, at 46 percent.

If you’re a political independent, you don’t approve of Obama, either; he’s at 46 percent with that group. Same if you go to church weekly; Obama’s rating among regular churchgoers is at 45 percent. So from Gallup, these are the groups among whom Obama is at 50 percent or below:

Married 47
Men 50
Over 65 48
White 46
Independents 46
Weekly church 45
South 49
Some college 50
Republicans 20
Conservatives 28

Those are Obama’s weak spots. But what about his strong points? Among the groups in which he has an approval rating of 60 percent or higher are people age 18-29, at 63 percent; unmarried people, at 63 percent; blacks, at 92 percent; Hispanics, at 69 percent; other non-whites, at 73 percent; people with graduate study beyond a college degree, 60 percent; and people who make less than $2,000 a month, at 64 percent. Here’s the list:

Illinois Guy makes an interesting point. Would rallying support for just one candidate strengthen his chances of defeating Obama?

Does attacking republican candidates only provide ammunition for democrats?

How can we better build our chances of retaking the Senate and the Presidency from the democrats? Instead of just building our individual candidates – what can we do as a Party to better position ourselves against the opposition (democrats)?

Pawlenty’s niche is that of the non-controversial consensus choice. If 2008 is any preview, the top-tier candidates are going to get rough. This may alienate voters and they may just decide to go with the other guy. Pawlenty should try and make himself that other guy.

That is certainly an option. But would a guy planning to be a “non-controversial consensus choice” be spreading dis-information about MassCare? It would seem to me that if that was the route he was intending to take, he would attempt to be Mr. Niceguy above the fray.

The national polling keeps getting worse for Palin. While she could win the nomination (though I consider it unlikely) I don’t know how she can recover nationally in time to win 2012. How on earth does she stop the bleeding–especially now that she is out of office.

Consider her numbers seem on par with Hillary’s at her worse in the first 2 years of Bill’s first term. It took Hillary keeping her mouth shut for the last 6 years of Bill, becoming a senator, and then 8 years of Bush for her to rebound–and even then still with very high negatives just slightly less than her favorables.

The 2012 campaign begins in barely 18 months with candidates generally announcing their formal candidacies in VERY early 2011. How does Sarah, in less than 18 months, turn her favorables around?? Also, voters do know her–unlike say a Pawlenty. She was the VP nominee for pete sakes! She has gotten more press than anyone not named Obama. Unfortunately for Palin, and the GOP if she is nominated, the electorate simply does believe she has the competency, gravitas or seriousness to be president.

Well MarK, to a certain degree Mr. Pawlenty’s chances depend on who is running, that will help determine the whole dynamics of the race. As for Mr. Pawlenty playing nice, it is a double edge sword. We all like Mr. Pawlenty because he is a nice likable guy, but few of us love him. Yes he will eventually make a few enemies by not playing nice, but he a) needs a little more air time (attension) and b) he needs to show he is a non-sense, non-boring man. So if you are expecting Mr. Pawlenty to be totally nice and totally above the fray, I do not think it will happen.

“TB, in the PPP poll, showing way too few independents hurt Mitt versus the other Republican candidates, other than probably Huckabee, about the same. Secondly, that portion of the Democrats that should have been independent helped Obama against all republican candidates, but more so Mitt and Huckabee than the others.”

Ok, so you are arguing it hurt his standing relative to other candidates.

However, you do concede that it doesn’t hurt him a general election matchup with Obama because that would be false?

Who knows, maybe Romney will leap out ahead of both Palin and Huckabee when that poll is released this week? I wouldn’t doubt it.

The liberals have had their laughs deconstructing Sarah Palin’s recent screed on the subject of health care. But it is far more fun to have a go at it from a conservative perspective.

Here’s what the possible contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination had to say on the internet about proposed modifications to the section of the Medicare code concerning the “Advance Care Planning Initiative.”

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

Liberal critics focused on the fact the proposal in question did not include any such “death panels.” But being liberals, they endorsed Palin’s central thesis: that Medicare should indeed provide essentially unlimited coverage for Palin’s child as well as her parents.

But senior citizens who receive Medicare benefits pay only a fraction of the cost of the coverage, with the bulk coming from the taxpayers. As for Palin’s child, she seems to be assuming that his care comes under the Medicare law. That seems unlikely, but if he is indeed covered by it or some other government program, then the entire cost of his treatment is being paid by taxpayers.

Now let us assume that the panel Palin envisions is created and various of her relatives are paraded before it. The panelists would be deciding not whether the relative in question should receive treatment. They would be deciding whether the taxpayers should fund that treatment.

Palin agrees with the liberals that it’s evil to deny that payment. As a conservative, though, I believe it’s evil for her to expect my family to pay her family’s health-care costs. The Palin family can afford to come all the way from Alaska to New York to watch a Yankee game. With Yankee ticket prices what they are, I couldn’t even afford to take my family across the Hudson River. Yet she wants to use my taxes to subsidize her medical bills?

Well, not just hers. Unless I miss the plain meaning of her words, Palin is arguing that it is evil for the taxpayers to deny anyone any coverage “to reduce the growth in health care spending,” as she put it in a later post.

That’s nice. But that’s socialism. And that’s exactly where Ronald Reagan predicted Medicare would lead us.

Palin is often compared to Reagan, but only by people as softheaded as she is. In fact, Reagan was an astute student of economics, in which he held a degree, and he predicted that the adoption of Medicare would lead to the exact mind-set evinced by Palin.

In a 1961 speech (below) that was circulated around the country on a 33-rpm record, Reagan asked listeners to write their congressmen to warn that passage of Medicare would lead to “creeping socialism.”

“If this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise but we have these great services that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it,” warned Reagan.

That of course represents a perfect description of Palin’s mind-set. And while he was at it, Reagan got in some criticisms that apply to the other leading contender for the 2012 GOP nomination, Mitt Romney. As Massachusetts governor, Romney helped implement a system of compulsory health insurance. Harry Truman got there first, Reagan noted.

“The American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it,” Reagan said. “We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States and of course the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.”

In the good old days, Republicans believed the government had the power to tell you to pay your bills. But it was none of the government’s business whether you chose to pay those bills out of pocket or through insurance.

Now many Republicans accept Romney’s view that the government can not only force you to buy an insurance policy but also dictate what that policy should cover. And if Palin gets her way, your premiums may cover her family’s bills so she can spend more time jetting around the country campaigning for president.

“One of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free,” Reagan said on that record. He must be spinning in his grave faster than that LP at the thought of who’s leading the Republican Party today.

Pre-emptive Moron Perspective Alert If you are going to comment here on the nature of American conservatism and Palin’s relationship to it, please show some knowledge of the classical conservatism that Reagan was endorsing when he was backing the candidacy of Barry Goldwater.

If you can make some argument that Palin and Romney somehow can be seen as conservatives in that historical context, feel free to try to do so. And if you can find the slightest indication on her Facebook pages that Palin realizes she is responsible for paying for her children’s health care, or that Medicare is a socialist program that is going bankrupt, please cite that quote.

It would also help if you would listen to the Reagan speech in full before commenting. It’s well worth your time.

Also, for a useful corrective, check this video of Ron Paul stating that health care is not a right.

TB says “Ok, so you are arguing it hurt his standing relative to other candidates.

However, you do concede that it doesn’t hurt him a general election matchup with Obama because that would b”e false?
”

Not completely my boy: I am arguing the fact that Mitt was hurt by the fact that PPP had too many Democrats and not enough independents h
Obviously, Mitt does a whole lot better amongst independents than he does amongst democrats.

Considering that PPP(D) showed 35% of the country as Republicans, it cannot get any better than that for us.

So any undersampling of indies as compared to dems is outweighed by the high percentage of Republicans in the poll, which helps everybody. I cannot envision a scenario where a pollster showing 35% of Republicans is a bad thing.

“Mitt does a whole lot better amongst independents than he does amongst democrats.” All things equal, I tend to agree, although if I remember correctly, other demograhic points in the poll were not shall we say anti-Romney.

#71 – How is that a hit on Romney at all? The Mass. program that changes was all for getting people private insurance. The state paid for it before, so that is the condiction like what Mulshine is condemning. Mitt did all her could to get them out of that situation, and to a large degree accomplished it.

The definition of a non sequitur: A candidate with only 33% national support and losing to the Messiah by 23 points is able through a couple of Facebook entries able to undermine the latter’s agenda and cause a change in a proposed Senate Obamacare bill. I didn’t just get off the bus.

So Illinois, you agree with Mulshine’s characterization that Romney implemented what he calls a “system of compulsory health insurance” that Reagan railed against and forces “you to buy an insurance policy but also dictate what that policy should cover?”

I think Romney and his supporters would dispute that characterization emphatically.

TB – I dispute it yes, absolutely. Because you have to compare it to what the state of Mass had prior to the new plan. One must not ignore the existing environment. What Reagan was saying is that we should never allow states to become what the previous situation in Massachusetts was. Once that sitation existed, I don’t think Reagan would have railed against gettng rid of the freeloaders.

“If you can make some argument that Palin and Romney somehow can be seen as conservatives in that historical context, feel free to try to do so. And if you can find the slightest indication on her Facebook pages that Palin realizes she is responsible for paying for her children’s health care, or that Medicare is a socialist program that is going bankrupt, please cite that quote.” Talk about a red herring. This assumes that we will still have private insuranse a few years from now. Obamacare sees things a little differently. Another attempt to compare apples to oranges.

Since a bunch of readers want to know where I come down on the great debate of the day, let me start by saying that Rich Lowry is not only a handsome man, but a wise and powerful one. As are all of the editors and others who make my work so enjoyable around here (of course, the womenfolk are lovely, as opposed to handsome). But I guess I’m more in the McCarthy & Steyn camp. As a matter of the finer points of policy discussion, I think the death-panel label is awfully blunt and inexact.

But in the arena of a vital political contest, I think M&S are right that it distilled some important issues down to an important truth: if Obama, Pelosi, Waxman et al get their way, the relationship between the citizen and the state is profoundly, and perhaps permanently, altered and down that path lurks death panels. Oh, they won’t be called death panels, but that function will lurk like the ghost in the machine of the federal bureaucracy. Back when the health-care debate was abstract and liberals were sure they would win the day, they were far more comfortable talking about this sort of thing. Barack Obama talked about rationing care for people like his grandmother and seeking guidance from a super-smart panel of experts in this regard. Just a month ago, the New York Times magazine saw nothing wrong with running this unabashed love-letter to a health-care system, in effect, ruled by death panels (See my post on this last Friday, or Tom Maguire’s Sunday item for more). Now, suddenly, to even suggest such a possibility is McCarthyism — now called Palinism — according to Richard Cohen.

What drives me crazy about liberal complaints about conservative tactics these days is how selective they are. Obama, Barney Frank, Jacob Hacker, and others have said that they want these reforms — specifically the public option — to lead to single payer. But when conservatives take them at their word, suddenly it’s outrageous misinformation and “fishy” stuff. When the wind is at their backs, liberals look way off to the horizon, like Obama at a podium, dreaming of a future of European-style statism. But when conservatives use this to their advantage, suddenly it is outrageous to even consider the possibility of a road to hell being paved with good intentions. Suddenly liberals bleat that it is scare-mongering to look beyond what they are proposing in this exact moment, outrageous to ask “Where will this lead?” I agree entirely with Andy that conservatives are under no obligation to unilaterally agree to liberal terms or definitions but rather, as he puts it, “Our function is to call the opposition on such hair-splitting nonsense, not to make the fog harder to pierce.”

And this raises what I think is part of the problem. As Mark says, this is a massive political fight — one that conservatives are winning, by the way — and there’s a natural tension between wanting to argue the finer points of policy and win the battle over the politics. I don’t begrudge NR’s attempt to get this balance right by erring on the side of describing the policy correctly and in good faith. But, also in good faith, I don’t see it quite the same way, and I don’t think Palin’s contributions are part of the problem with the health-care debate.

Update: And now, having dropped my hockey puck, I’m off to check out the ice hotel. Back from Fairbanks adventures later.

Are you seriously going to use a speech that Ronald Reagan made nearly half a century ago as an argument against providing affordable healthcare in the America we live in today? When Reagan gave that speech in 1961, an American mother and her newborn baby could expect to receive a leisurely week of care and observation in a US hospital. In 2009 America, an American mother and her baby are lucky if they’re kept overnight before both are quickly wheeled out to the parking lot.

PM: Thank you! That is the most brilliant example of how much better the health care system functioned in the free-market era I’ve ever heard. Wish I’d thought of it.

You say – “As a conservative, though, I believe it’s evil for her to expect my family to pay her family’s health-care costs.”

Take Palin out of it, It sounds as if you are saying that if someone can not afford to pay for their families health care costs, they should not be able to rely on a government funded system of any sort. While that may fit into your brand of conservatism, do you propose that the family who can not afford the medical expenses suffer as a result?

PM: I’m proposing what Reagan was proposing and what for that matter Ron Paul was proposing. And that is to reduce the role of government drastically. We now know Medicare is going bankrupt, so that will happen anyway. But it clearly was a huge mistake.

“As a conservative, though, I believe it’s evil for her to expect my family to pay her family’s health-care costs.”

The situation would probably be the other way around: Palin’s family would be paying your family’s bills.

If you think the current system is good and sustainable, that’s fine, but don’t distort what is being proposed just to take shots at Palin (as fun as that is).

PM: That’s not the case. Both my parents are already dead. She wants me to support her parents. I don’t want her to support my parents.

What I do want is for her and other Republicans to stop demagoguing the issue of Medicare by accusing Obama of cutting it. If they were true conservatives, they’d want to eliminate it entirely, not merely cut it.

“Care to expound…I thought it was the other way around. With the anti-Mormon out of the race it will be easier for Mitt to win Evangelicals.” Huh, if Evangelicals are as anti-Mormon as you suggest, Mr. Romney would have a difficult time no matter who he faces.

Great question. All the infighting should stop, and objective thinking should take it’s place. That means people like Flip will need to control their emotions and start using their heads(thinking objectively) when having dialogue.

True, but Huckabee adds a supplimental fuel to that unfortunate fire. It is no secret out there(you’d have to suffer from a gross level of ignorance to not see it) that Huckabee wins most of the Evangelicals.

With him out, many that would have voted for Huck will still vote for Mitt.

I think that’s Palin’s ceiling, and it’s a bit on the high side. But she’s had a lucid week with her facebooking lie. She got her gang riled up over the ‘death panels’. (which, there are none, but her minions are not smart enough to do their own research). Huck won’t run. He’s making too much $$ on Fox.

Since a bunch of readers want to know where I come down on the great debate of the day, let me start by saying that Rich Lowry is not only a handsome man, but a wise and powerful one. As are all of the editors and others who make my work so enjoyable around here (of course, the womenfolk are lovely, as opposed to handsome). But I guess I’m more in the McCarthy & Steyn camp. As a matter of the finer points of policy discussion, I think the death-panel label is awfully blunt and inexact.

So all I need to do is say that about Aron, before I tell him he is wrong about Palin? 😉

#85 – I don’t think that’s what competent conservatism said. He said “With the anti-Mormon out of the race it will be easier for Mitt to win Evangelicals.” In this case he was calling only one person anti-Mormon, and that was Huckabee. Separate and apart from the fact that Huckabee exhibits signs of being anti-Mormon, those who follow him are politically lined up with both Huckabee and Mitt on social issues, at least. So, Mitt will get some, Sarah will get some, and others will get some. How much each person gets is an unknown.

I tend to somewhat agree with Tommy Boy though. I do tend to think Mitt only gets perhaps a third of the Huckabee if he leaves, or doesn’t enter. Conversely, I think Mitt gets more than his share of Gingrich voters as he fades into oblivion. Mitt will win on competence,the economy., and credentials of being a turn around artist. We’ll have a lot to turn around, and it will be obvious who can do that best.

“I do tend to think Mitt only gets perhaps a third of the Huckabee if he leaves, or doesn’t enter.”

A third is a little on the high side in my opinion.

How I would see the 19% breaking out is 9% for Palin 3% for Romney and 7% for others.

Nobody knows who is part of this Newt vote. Newt’s hard-right supporters would probably go to Palin but his more pragmatic voters would go to Pawlenty or some other figure. I actually don’t see Romney getting too much of the Newt vote.

Either around 3/5 or 2/3 of the party is unwilling to tell a pollster at this time that Barack Obama was born here in the United States.

Around the same percentage would say the same thing about “death panels” and an even greater percentage would say the same thing regarding mandating policies that lead to euthanasia.

Since Republicans that hold these beliefs comprise an overwhelming majority of the party, how they vote will have a greater impact on who wins the nomination than those in the party who do not hold these beliefs.

TB I totally disagree with you on the Newt voters. Those in love with Palin are already in her camp.
Same way with Huckabee! Mitt will get half of the Gingrich voters, and you’re way low as to what Mitt would get of the Huckabee voters. Remember Sarah is the one that 23% of the Republican voters said that she was the last of all potential candidates that they would vote for, not Romney at only 9%. With that stat in mind how you can sit there and think that Sarah is going to have all these people running to her is beyond me. Especially when only 12% of the Republican voters want her to try for the PResidency in 2012. Also, the fact that only 33% of the Republican voters believe she would be an ‘effective’ President. Also, when they see how terribly she does against Obama, that will prevent most people that might think about going with her from doing so.

“True, but Huckabee adds a supplimental fuel to that unfortunate fire. It is no secret out there(you’d have to suffer from a gross level of ignorance to not see it) that Huckabee wins most of the Evangelicals.”

This statement is also true:
“True, but Romney’s fans adds a supplimental fuel to that unfortunate fire. It is no secret out there(you’d have to suffer from a gross level of ignorance to not see it) that Romney wins most of the Mormons.”

I don’t think Evangelicals are any more or less biased than Mormons themselves are.

If my wife sees this I will cease to exist, but it appears the majority of woman are deceived in politics. Bill Clinton was big with woman. Huckabee is actually like a male Oprah with that show of his. Many woman watch his show. I think woman love that folksy southern charm like accent that both Huck and Clinton have.

Shame on those woman. I should not that my wife was a solid conservative before I met her and very not like that natural woman.

“Around the same percentage would say the same thing about “death panels” and an even greater percentage would say the same thing regarding mandating policies that lead to euthanasia.

Since Republicans that hold these beliefs comprise an overwhelming majority of the party, how they vote will have a greater impact on who wins the nomination than those in the party who do not hold these beliefs.”

Without polling measuring how big of a factor each of those items are, that’s a huge leap.

The ECONOMY is the biggest factor right now, by far, and I’m not even sure if Palin can spell it at this point! 😉 That was a joke!

“Remember Sarah is the one that 23% of the Republican voters said that she was the last of all potential candidates that they would vote for, not Romney at only 9%.”

How do we know those were Huckabee voters? They could have all been Romney voters saying that. We just don’t know.

I’m going off favorables/unfavorables in the party, which I believe tell the story. The effective president number is not as meaningful as the favorable/unfavorable number in my opinion because the former number provides you with the most upside in the primary battle while the latter number is mostly irrelevant once the person becomes the nominee.

People will vote for who they like personally in a primary. That’s always been the view from my vantage point in a primary.

My fear is that the media fascination with Palin is based solely on their desire to brand us the party of Palin. This is why she gets so much attention. Rush and others continue to claim that the left is afraid of Palin, but the polls show that almost no one believes she is qualified to be POTUS. So why on earth would they be afraid of her?

They aren’t. They want the GOP to be seen as the party of Palin: Extreme right-wing rhetoric, intellectually laziness, redneck/southern backwoods types, religious nutjobs, joe the plumber types, etc.

And we’re just letting them do it. We’re going to be in a pickle if they succeed.

I find it interesting that y’all keep having a conversation over how Romney will or will not do better when Huckabee does not run. Believe me, that with Huckabee’s show and the topics he is including in his show, that he will be running.

Secondly, The poll showed that those making under $50,000 voted for Huckabee. Those that were not college graduates also voted for Huckabee. And given that TB wrote “Assuming a 55/45 male/female ratio, the undecided are women by around 1.4/1 ratio. Once again, I’m loving these numbers for the purposes of the nomination. If Huckabee bows out, that leaves 53% of the female Republican/Republican-leaning independent vote up for grabs.” I would have to say that those numbers look best for Huckabee.

Also I have noted from reading Huckabee’s show feedback link, with his discussion on seniors and healthcare, he has suddenly gotten a huge following of seniors. I remember in a recent poll that those seniors were going to Romney. But I wonder if many of them are liking Huckabee’s commonsense style of politics.

In other words, those of you who keep wishing that Huckabee will not run because a.) he is making too much money now b.) he loves the fame of his show c.)he thinks he can’t win because of Palin–I would think that Huckabee is liking his chances in 2012.

I think Huckabee and Pawlenty going after Romney and MassCare this past couple of weeks hurt them.

Huckabee and Palin should be higher in the polls since they have dominated the news in the republican circles for months, maybe becoming overexposed. Romney is playing it right by laying low, and realizing that the primary hasn’t started yet.

In the 08′ primary, he peeked too early, but I don’t see that he had a choice because he needed name recognition. He was between a rock and a hard place and he knew it.

116 Martha, I agree. I have always been a staunch conservative. But the nut cases on the far right are making my stomach turn. I think there are centrists and center leftists who feel the same about the far left. If there were ever a chance for a successful third party it would be now and the party would be near the center. Preferably center right of course 😉

Haha Tommy Boy, I’m glad that I am in your camp. You really know how to set off the non-Palinites. Yeah you were not even saying you supported Mr. Huckabee, you were just giving an honest prediction. By the same logic, Illinoisguy just insulted all Pawlentyites, Huckabees and Palinites by predicting that Gingrichites will support Mr. Romney.

#101 “Giuliani’s folks were saying the same thing of Romney back in ‘05″

That’s fine to try to draw a parallel between the 2, but Rudy didn’t already run and therefore did not have a strong ground organization like Mitt does now. Did you really not understand that, or just ignoring it. Just curious.

“Nor do I see evidence that electability played a huge role considering that only 9% used that as a ground on which to base thier vote.”

I found electability to be huge during the primaries. I did a lot of calls for the Huckabee campaign. I can’t tell you how many people I talked to who liked Huckabee, wanted to vote for Huckabee, but said that McCain was going to win-and hence they said they were going to vote for McCain. Go figure.

119. OJ. I was not making a comment about anyone in our party, I was referring to what the left likes to say about us – their image of us. Palin’s brand of politics fits the image.

Texas, I’m one who thinks Huck will surely run. I hope he does, because Romney already proved he can beat him. I hope Palin runs too – the more the merrier. But I don’t really think it’s going to hurt Romney all that much if either decide not to.

Illinois, people see things from their very own “frame of reference” which can or cannot reflect reality. In this case, there is not reality in that Mormons are voting for Mitt cause he is Mormon. If Harry Reid ran for President I would never vote for him, even if her were Republican. I would not vote for Orrin Hatch because I don’t think he has the competence that Mitt has.

126. Texas – yesterday I asked you how you explain your support in light of Huck’s problems such as the pardons, the ethics violations, the 500 mil in new taxes, the big gov record, etc. Why do you support him? Specifically, how do you reconcile the 1000 pardons? Do they bother you?

Because they agree with his religion which was plainly made manifest when Huckabee started courting them as being “one of you” in his commercials. Why else would Romney’s poll numbers in Iowa went from 35% to 15%, and Hucks from 15% to 31% in just 1 month?

When it got very narrow for Hucks chances, he appealed to, and took advantage of, that base. This was a desperate crime committed in American politics. It is not the Republican, but the Democrat, way of campaigning. It was very Clintoness.

‘By the same logic, Illinoisguy just insulted all Pawlentyites, Huckabees and Palinites by predicting that Gingrichites will support Mr. Romney.’

They have it coming! We have before us one of the greatest talents we’ve ever had ready to run and become President, and we’ve got 75% of the party running around trying to decide between everyone else.

“119. OJ. I was not making a comment about anyone in our party, I was referring to what the left likes to say about us – their image of us. Palin’s brand of politics fits the image.” Well, the left is for the most part wrong. Yes there are a small per centage of people in our party who are either bigoted, stupid and or extreme. However, as Tommy Boy suggested earlier, we are more mainstream than our image. Frankly calling all Repeblicans Red-necks or even certain camps is a straw man, and we are sick of this arrogance.

Yes, I know I’m quite the exception among Mormons. Perhaps it’s simply the fact that I’m from Georgia, not Utah, but I don’t share one bit of the general skepticism the rest of you have for Southerners and evangelicals in general.

““Clinton and Huckabee are both incredibly personable” Not in my book they’re not.”

There isn’t a Democrat my dad will stick up for, except for Clinton. Like it or not, he left office with good approvals across the board. And a good part of that, is because he relates to people well.

Bush is also quite personable, if not so charismatic, but his presidency got hijacked by corruption in Congress and the failure of conservative pet issues – otherwise he’d likely have finished in far better shape.

“That’s fine to try to draw a parallel between the 2, but Rudy didn’t already run and therefore did not have a strong ground organization like Mitt does now. Did you really not understand that, or just ignoring it. Just curious.”

Giuliani also didn’t have to deal with the fact that everyone knows who he is but only 20% support him solidly. Those huge favorables he had could have locked things up with a better campaign. His issue is that while many voters like him, plenty were open to other options (like McCain, and even Romney). The 80% that are not backing Romney are obviously open to other options. That would include Pawlenty as the most likely dark horse.

“Yes, I know I’m quite the exception among Mormons. Perhaps it’s simply the fact that I’m from Georgia, not Utah, but I don’t share one bit of the general skepticism the rest of you have for Southerners and evangelicals in general.
” Interesting, many times, it is region that trumps religion.

137. I must admit, I do view southerners and evangelicals with skepticism nowadays. After the 08 election, that is. A lot of stereotypical myths are starting to look real. I used to give them all the benefit of the doubt.

Sounds like Rudy and Palin were in the same position, though I question whether his favorables in the party were as high as her favorables within the party.

Rudy’s issue from an issue standpoint from my vantage point is that it became apparent that he was too conservative for pro-choicers and not conservative enough for pro-lifers. He was left with a very small base.

His narrative was also co-opted by John McCain, who could lay a more plausible claim for that narrative.

“They have it coming! We have before us one of the greatest talents we’ve ever had ready to run and become President, and we’ve got 75% of the party running around trying to decide between everyone else.” I am not going to dignify that directly, but I’ll say Illinoisguy that you have missed Tommy Boy’s point. He did not say that he supports Mr. Huckabee, he was simple giving a prediction. Of course you are free to make a different prediction about PPP, but I fail to understand why Tommy Boy’s predition offends you per se. After all, if he is wrong and you are right, you can have the satisfaction of being right. But if he is right, he is just making a prediction about PPP, this should not be an insult to you or your camp.

First of all Martha, I do not have each person’s criminal file in front of me. So I cannot read all the facts. And before I condemn someone I like to know all of the facts. Secondly, a lot of those that were pardoned were those that the fine/sentence was much harsher in Arkansas and so they let those people out early (i.e. convictions for drug use). Thirdly, I am sure that Huckabee felt horrible after the Dumond guy killed after he was released. I bet when Huckabee looked back over his governing career that he felt that case was his biggest mistake. But didn’t Romney also appoint a judge who let a criminal go who killed again or something like that?? Finally, Huckabee was one of the few governors who actually had to deal with the death penalty and those types of cases. So one cannot compare apples to oranges.

Taxes or fees or whatever you want to call them. I myself do not have a problem with an increase in a tax or fee if I am getting a better government service out of it. As Huckabee stated and the New York times defended him as well, those tax increases were for roads, schools, jails, healthcare. And that is why people pay taxes. Now compare that with Gov. Perry who has also used “fee increases”. He can say that he did not increase taxes, but when you are paying for a better service it really does not matter if it is called a tax or a fee-you still are missing money in your wallet.

The ethics violations, again I do not have each of those complaints and the research behind it in front of me. So how do I know if they were from the many liberal democrats trying to bring Huckabee down-as they were doing to Palin in Alaska, or angry republicans who were angry that Huckabee was compromising with the democrats-such as the republicans who were starting to get angry at Palin when she sided with the democrats in her state. Again, I don’t have all the facts.

Big government record-ah yes, I thought Huckabee developing the program called Arkkids (which made him a nannystater)that helped kids whose families were above the poverty line but were too poor to buy insurance-gain access to health insurance for those kids. I guess that actually helped keeping those kids out of the ER which would then save hospitals and the state of Arkansas some money.

See Martha, I don’t have rose colored glasses on-I actually wear contacts-and I do look for the good in people. You have decided that Huckabee is the devil in plus size store bought suit. So I doubt that you will ever see the good in Huckabee.

Remember, it is politics. I don’t for one minute think that any politician out there is completely honest and true. No matter what their religion, they all sin in some way. It could be a little white lie or a complete scandal. They all make back room deals and they all compromise on their principles. They each have to decide which principle is their line in the sand.

So, texas, are you saying that if a jury and/or a judge imposes sentences, that the governor should over ride those entities whenever he feels like it? Do you realize that he pardoned more people than all of the other contiguous states combined over his tenure?

Everybody should read the article I just linked. Don’t keep you head in the sand any longer about Huckabee’s clemencies. You know how many Mitt had in 4 years??? ZERO my friends! That’s for the judicial branch of government.

“They have it coming! We have before us one of the greatest talents we’ve ever had ready to run and become President, and we’ve got 75% of the party running around trying to decide between everyone else.”

It’s not out of spite, IG, so don’t take it hard. The same thing happened in the last election after all. Romney’s burnt lots of bridges, and he still has a couple of years to fix them. He can’t just expect folks to wade out to his little island for no reason at all.

The idea of Romney as the most competent, elite, non-Bush conservative though has to go. Especially since Romney isn’t anywhere near as personable as Bush. It makes no one else like him. He’s a Dick Cheney with better looking hair.

Martha,

“137. I must admit, I do view southerners and evangelicals with skepticism nowadays. After the 08 election, that is. A lot of stereotypical myths are starting to look real. I used to give them all the benefit of the doubt.”

I wager then that you probably don’t know any. That’s usually the problem.

The fact of the matter is this. Any person who supports a specific candidate for the Republican nomination, at this point, is a political junkie and any person who takes a poll during dinner time about the 2012 elections are political junkies or bored human beings. When the average voter starts looking at the candidates…that is when we can tell who has an upper hand.

As of now…the top tier candidates are in a statistical tie. We know, from this poll, that Sarah Palin does not fare well against Obama. The source of the poll could have much to do with the numbers that are being displayed here. One thing we do know is that whoever is writing these poll questions do not see a necessity of asking how Romney or Huckabee will do against Obama. BUT how can one trust these polls anyway? How do I know they polled any Republicans? How do I know they asked the same questions of every person polled? It is way too early to tell! If Palin is doing as bad against Obama as this poll indicates then I do not see, statistically, how anyone can beat Obama in 2012!!!

I’ll depart this thread since IG seems to have flown off the handle. Here is my concluding thought.

Marist has Obama’s approval/disapporval at 55/35. So effectively, those that approve of Obama are voting for him against Palin and those who disaprove of Obama are effectively voting for her.
I don’t see why that’s so stunning. If I liked the job Obama was doing, I’d vote for him. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t vote for him and that’s what the numbers seem to reflect.

“They have it coming! We have before us one of the greatest talents we’ve ever had ready to run and become President, and we’ve got 75% of the party running around trying to decide between everyone else.”

I’m sorry, but that sort of nonsense has to stop. I expect those sorts of comment from an Obama supporter. NO candidate is perfect. Not Romney, not Huckabee, not Palin. None of them are the perfect candidate.

Also, it really doesn’t help persuade other people to vote for your candidate if you demean them and insult their intelligence because they haven’t seen the obvious greatness of your candidate.

You’re probably right as far as helping Mitt goes, but it’s the way I see it. Mitt Romney has so much to offer us, and 75% seem to do all they can to find someone else to support. What the heck are we supposed to believe that is all about?

Texas, it appears that you are the one with rose-colored glasses on. Huck has a multitude of serious actions from the pardons on down. If you are going to support your guy, you should know the facts.

He has never expressed responsibility or regret for his role in releasing DuMond. In fact, he has lied about it, to try to cover up his involvment. That is a 100% dealbreaker for me. If he were even sorry, it might help, but he is not. He brushed off all the victims, and victims family members who pled with him to stop. He did not. His loyaly went to his pastor friends who believed they were the end-all-be-all in determining who should be let free. Too bad about the law, and about justice. Huck dispensed his own radical and subjective brand of mercy.

Romney never pardoned anyone due to his profound respect for the judicial system. The fact that Mass has no death penalty has no bearing.

You should also take some time to investigate the ethics violations, and Huck’s record in Arkansas, He has a well-founded reputation for bending the rules.

That, along with his atrocious behavior during the primary, his blatant religion-baiting, and many other things, just make it impossible for me to ever support him.

Maybe the rest of us see qualities we like more in other candidates. Maybe some people think he isn’t a good pick electorally. Maybe some Republicans don’t want a coronation and want to see a free and open competition for the nomination. Maybe others don’t agree with his positions on certain issues.

There are a lot of potential reasons why. If Romney is as good as you believe he is, than he should be able to make the rest of us see the light.

My one humble suggestion would be to be less elite. It’s not a thing of religion (I can’t be accused of anti-Mormon bias, can I?), it’s that no one likes the guy, the campaign, that comes off as “were better than everyone else”. American libertarian/conservative leanings are fundamentally against elitism, and when Romney is claimed to be the most intelligent, the most qualified, the most professional, and most conservative (which given Romney’s past as governor of Massachusetts also exposes him to hypocrisy), most folks are going to have something against him.

The day Romney and his band show some true humility, is the day people will start thinking twice.

#157 – Illinois, honestly I just do not like Romney as a person…or at least the person he purports to be! He did some sleezy things last time around and I don’t think his credentials are so overwhelmingly better than anybody else’s that he has to be the defacto leader. He has many instances in the past where he wasn’t as conservative as he proclaims to be now and I don’t see how a Wall Street big shot/corporate raider will help the Republican’s in a general election against Obama. He’s kind of boring and he appears to get into a tizzy when he is questioned during debates. I’m just not a fan. I think he is a good warrior for our cause I just don’t want to see him as President. Nothing more than that.

Sorry to pile on against Illinoisguy today (he has actually been more of a gentleman towards the other candidates before today,) but frankly with this type of additude, I will have a bloody difficult time voting for Mr. Romney instead of Mr. Pawlenty or Mr. Huckabee even if I do conclude he is the next best thing (haha, and no Mrs. Palin is not quite perfect.) Yes this non-sense I’d expect from other elements in the Romney camp.

Martha:
I have been to 5 states that could possiblely be considered southern states, but I myself have never been to the deep South. I do however, have good friends from the South. Let’s just say, they are not the people you paint them to be. Also, while I have been to your neighboring state of Washington and have a few friends from there, I have never been to your state and to my knowledsge, I have never met anybody from your state. However, I will try to keep an open mind and not be as prejudice against your state as you are to a few other states.

Illinoisguy, you were more convincing this morning when debated the health care issue. While I still may have a few disagreements with Mr. Romney (on health care) that is the Mr. Romney that I’d prefer to vote for.

“Gov. Huckabee isn’t laughing out loud anymore when it comes to the touchy subject of clemencies. Until last week, Huckabee and his staff thought it was pretty funny when a prosecutor criticized one of the governor’s all too frequent clemencies. It was nobody’s business but Mike’s. But after a huge public outcry – and, we understand, pressure from the Bush-Cheney campaign to cool it on the commutations, at least until after the elections – the governor has issued a half-hearted apology for having been less than candid about all those controversial clemencies for friends and for friends of friends.

Although he threw a few punches at prosecutors who criticized him publicly, he did say in his statement, sort of, that he was sorry and he would better explain his clemencies in the future. For eight years, Huckabee would not tell the people of Arkansas why he was reducing the sentences of convicted felons. “No comment,” sniffed his spokesmen. It was none of our business.When it comes to clemencies, he now says “crime victims, their families, the law-enforcement community and citizens in general deserve a more detailed explanation.”

The statement came about eight years too late, and it’s typical Huckabee: Self-pitying, misleading and full of hot air. “I want to do my best to explain this sometimes complex process and how I’ve carried it out in my eight years as governor,” his statement went on.

What took you so long, Mike? “I understand the pain crime victims and their families have endured,” Huckabee claims, but you wouldn’t have guessed it from his sorry record.
He wouldn’t meet with victims’ families and didn’t bother telling them about pending clemencies. After he was forced to withdraw his offer of clemency to Glen Green – the former Air Force sergeant who beat his own pregnant wife, then brutally murdered a teenager and dumped her body into the Twin Prairie Bayou – Huckabee pretty much admitted he knew nothing about the case. As is his custom, he had listened to a fellow preacher who pushed for Green’s release knowing about as much about the killing as the governor did.

Having alienated prosecutors in his own party, coupled with public anger, the governor has changed his mind about two clemencies for two other killers. The public and the media weren’t the only ones that had turned against him: Even his Post-Prison Transfer Board had unanimously voted against pardoning Green.

Until his dramatic turnabout, he had kept the public in the dark when he was considering clemencies. When he let criminals out of prison, he wouldn’t explain why. Huckabee had reasoned, according to his statement, that “if a governor explained his motivation in detail, other inmates would tailor the applications along those lines.” Huckabee may not have realized it, but every prisoner knew how to get on the governor’s good side. Call it Huckabee’s religion test. It’s a sure ticket to freedom: Tell him you’ve found religion.

After Huckabee announced Green’s clemency, Lonoke County Prosecutor Lona McCastlain located the relatives of the woman he had killed and they were furious. McCastlain told the governor he was making a terrible mistake and he backed down. He withdrew two other clemencies but two other nasty killers went free last month. He praised McCastlain’s professionalism, presumably because she’s a Republican, but he still hurled insults at prosecutors who happen to be Democrats. If this has turned into a partisan issue, Huckabee has no one to thank but himself.

But he still has plenty of explaining to do: Why did he run up a record-setting number of commutations and clemencies – he would have gone well above 1,000, and perhaps twice that, if we hadn’t forced his hand. Why had he not used commutations more judiciously? As the Leader has pointed out, he granted more commutations than his three previous predecessors combined. Did he think insulting or ignoring his critics would silence them and make the problem go away? This is how he operated in the past: He had his staff write insulting letters to his critics. “The governor read you (sic) letter and laughed out loud,” wrote a scoundrel named Cory Cox, a Huckabee legal adviser, by way of a reply to Saline County Prosecuting Attorney Robert Herzfeld, who opposed clemency for yet another vicious killer Huckabee took a liking to.

After weeks of negative publicity, Gov. Huckabee and his staff have stopped laughing at their critics and changed course on their controversial clemancies.

“He wanted me to respond to you. I wish you success as you cut down on your caffeine consumption,” Cox signed off mindlessly. But even as Huckabee and his staff gave the public the proverbial finger, Herzfeld went to court and had the clemency overturned, and prosecutors from both parties thought the governor was out of control.

Huckabee’s announcement last week promising to reform the commutation process basically adopts Herzfeld’s proposals that will go before the Legislature for action next year.
There were plenty of signs of trouble for Huckabee: Victims’ families were outraged, and the media finally took up their cause. All of a sudden, political reality whacked Huckabee in the head, and he was taught a simple civics lesson: Public opinion is more powerful than any one person, especially a lameduck governor who views the public with contempt. But then his record caught up with him: For a while, people gave him the benefit of the doubt as he freed one murderer, then another, and still more after that.
Then he took up the cause of a sociopath named Wayne DuMond and pushed for the rapist’s early release, which made it possible for him to kill two women in Missouri.
More questionable commutations followed, including a free pass for a habitual drunk driver serving a six-year sentence. A wealthy political donor, the felon went free after six months. Clemencies and commutations for the rich and the well-connected. That’s the Huckabee legacy.

When the history of his administration is written, it will include pictures of victims’ families holding up portraits of their loved ones who were murdered. We haven’t seen photos of Wayne DuMond’s victims, but they’ll turn up one of these days, and we’ll send Huckabee a whole gallery of photos that he can display at the Governor’s Mansion or in his office at the Capitol.”

The next Republican President should certainly consider putting Gov. Romney in the Cabinet. He’d make a great Secretary of the Treasury. Make Mike Huckabee Secretary of Health and Human Services and Sarah Palin Secretary of Energy.

“The day Romney and his band show some true humility, is the day people will start thinking twice.”
With respect, it is not simplly humility, it is the fact that some element in the Romney camp think the the rest of us (in so-called) fly-over country are nothing, but a bunch of uneducated drunks. Not all Romneyites have this additude, I think it would be best for Mr. Romney to listen to those of his supporters who do not look down on everybody else. Look, I myself am educated, my salary is slightly above the national average (and my neighborhood average) if I’m offended by this don’t you think some of my neighbors might be more offended?

It’s just obvious to me that it’s constantly team tactics against Mitt Romney on here. It’s been that way for a long time now. It was that way during the last primary, and it cost Mitt he election, and we got Obama because of it. And nobody should not vote for someone because of a few of his supporters don’t always represent that person in the best possible way.
Other candidates don’t seem to be judged by their constituents, but ANYTHING one can find to hold onto against Mitt, they seem to do it.

Politics is politics. McCain teamed up with Huckabee so as to prevent the evangelicals who dislike McCain from rallying to another candidate. Romney’s strategy in 2008 made teaming up against him politically savy for his rivals. They have Huckabee fight Romney in Iowa, McCain fight him in New Hampshire and the Romney front-loading strategy is gone, which gives the rest of them a chance for the nomination. It’s just good political strategy.

Oh, and if we nominated Reagan and teamed him up with Abe Lincoln, we still wouldn’t have won in 2008. You should be grateful that an essentially worthless nomination went to someone other than your man. It saved him for another shot in 2012.

Texas, you give the impression that the reason Huckabee let so many criminals go was based entirely on the circumstances in each case. But, after reading the article above, do you really believe ANY OTHER GOVERNOR would have done the same thing?

There is NO LOGICAL EXPLANATION for these pardons. None. This is a pathetic slap in the face of the judicial system, and entirely based on Huck’s religious views. It is clear that he abused his power as governor. No wonder people are afraid of him.

Here are some of the circumstances for the clemencies: Judge for yourselves!

As one Arkansas prosecutor put it, “It seems to be true at least anecdotally that if a minister is involved, (Huckabee) seems likely to grant clemency.” Others say the key was either having “direct contact” with him or a strong lobbying effort by those close to the inmate.

The rock star, of course, was Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones. No big deal there. As to the others: [More….]

James Maxwell, who killed a pastor of the Church of God in Arkansas. Maxwell worked at the Governor’s Mansion when Huckabee announced his intent to reduce his prison sentence.
Samuel W. Taylor, convicted on a drug charge. A prosecutor said the man had told him Taylor’s sister had gone to school with Huckabee. Huckabee said the sister didn’t influence the decision. Taylor subsequently was arrested on another drug charge.
Donald W. Clark, convicted of theft. Huckabee’s pastor recommended leniency for Clark, whose stepmother worked on Huckabee’s gubernatorial staff.
Robert A. Arnold Jr., who was convicted of killing his father-in-law. Arnold’s father, a former mayor of Hope, Huckabee’s hometown, said he was a casual friend of the governor.
Denver Witham, convicted of beating a man to death with a lead pipe at bar, had his sentence commuted by Huckabee. The action drew the ire of prosecutors who speculated that Huckabee’s act of clemency was related to Witham, who was lead singer in a prison band, being a fellow musician.
Some others:

Last week, Huckabee issued proclamations granting clemency for … John H. Claiborne, who is serving 375 years in prison for a 1994 kidnapping and armed robbery conviction in Pulaski County. ….Also last week, the governor announced he planned commute Dennis Lewis’ sentence of life in prison without parole to time served contingent upon the successful completion of a pre-release program. Lewis was convicted of capital murder in Washington County Circuit Court in 1975, for shooting a Fayetteville pawnshop owner. Earlier this month, Huckabee issued notice of intent to grant clemency to Glen Martin Green of Jacksonville, who was sentenced to life in prison in 1975 after pleading guilty to first-degree murder.
Huckabee granted a lot of deserved pardons while in office, particularly for drug offenders serving excessive sentences. A Governor’s use of clemency and pardon power is a good thing. The problem with Huckabee’s exercise of the power is that several of his decisions make no sense, he refused to explain his decisions, and he injected his religion into it. In 2004,

Gov. Mike Huckabee said Wednesday that his religious background and belief in redemption played a key role in the high number of state prisoners he has pardoned or turned loose early. “I would not deny that my sense of the reality of redemption is a factor.”

We are just a small, minute, microcosm of the voters in this country and this site has little to no influence over the masses and their opinions. I think we need to take ourselves a little less serious. I think these threads hurt our cause. Threads about Obama and what his policies are gain about 20 comments maybe but if there’s a post about one of the potential candidates…we’re hovering 200. Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous? I do it too, it is fun to argue and poke fun at one another but who is the real enemy here? It’s not Palin, Romney or Huckabee!!!

But did you notice that Illinois and Martha did not deny they weren’t Mr. and Mrs. Romney. Knickers is probably taking a nap. I’m just kidding but seriously…who in the heck let the dogs out? I mean I thought I knew but now I am not so sure…

Thanks MPC…I actually cracked myself up with that one. It’s all in good fun.

#179 – I know, I just wish I could do more I guess. This site is really my only outlet for political discourse so it just seems wasted knocking ourselves down when we have a President that is planning on knocking down the fabric of our civilization. That might have been a little overboard but I think you know what I mean?

“With respect, it is not simplly humility, it is the fact that some element in the Romney camp think the the rest of us (in so-called) fly-over country are nothing, but a bunch of uneducated drunks. Not all Romneyites have this additude, I think it would be best for Mr. Romney to listen to those of his supporters who do not look down on everybody else. Look, I myself am educated, my salary is slightly above the national average (and my neighborhood average) if I’m offended by this don’t you think some of my neighbors might be more offended?”

Well said Ohio. I’m not one of their intended stereotypical southerners but I’ll gladly stick up for any of the people most Romney folks intend to deride with their frequent insults.

“It’s just obvious to me that it’s constantly team tactics against Mitt Romney on here. It’s been that way for a long time now. It was that way during the last primary, and it cost Mitt he election, and we got Obama because of it. And nobody should not vote for someone because of a few of his supporters don’t always represent that person in the best possible way.
Other candidates don’t seem to be judged by their constituents, but ANYTHING one can find to hold onto against Mitt, they seem to do it.”

Like I said IG, it’s the constant touch of elitism the rest of us feel. *No one* likes folks that think they are better, smarter, or holier than everyone else. IG I would never apply any of those labels to you personally, but we see it just about everywhere else. There’s a general lack of humility, the humility that wins friends and admirers. At times Romney comes close, when he opens up personally, but when he gets back to rhetoric and issues there it goes out the window again.

That’s why Romney, who tries to be conservative to a T, lost the base vote to the frequently-apostate McCain. McCain who had done so many things before that conservatives absolutely hate. Difference? McCain didn’t presume to be anyone more than he really was. People knew that, and still accepted him in the end.

But honestly, would Mr. Corporate Romney have done any better than still-sort-of-maverick-McCain during the crisis? I hardly think so.

I just take some of the comments to seriously I guess. I truly believe Mitt Romney offers so much more than anyone else. I think he can bet Obama, and I’m not sure anyone else can. yes, I sometime joke, but most (not all of the time) I put a wink or smily face up when doing so.
I don’t agree at all that Mitt did things last time that caused him to deserve to be the one they picked on. They did so for one reason, and one reason only, and that’s the guy they saw coming on stronger and stronger each month, and they knew they had to put a stop to him. I know some of you just shrug the shoulders, and say that’s politics, but I say it’s the kind of politics that knockds down the best candidate, just like survivor on tv…. personally I don’t like team tactics. If you can’t beat him fairly, then you should be the one leaving, not the strong candidate.
As I have said before, most of the other candidates last time wouldn’t have gotten out of the batter’s box had they applied team tactics against them.

All’s fair in love, war, and politics. That’s why the attacks on Huckabee’s record on clemency, Palin’s abrupt resignation, and Romneycare are all fair game. If you’re concerned about the team tactics that occured last time, it is going to be worse next time. Especially if Romney gets annointed as the front-runner. You Romney folks and your candidate should act like the front-runner, ignore the sniping of those just trying to get a soundbite on the news.

Huckabee seems to consider himself more and more of an entertainer, and in turn he has marginalized himself as a potential 2012′ candidate. He has become the go to guy for FOX. It’s not good for him to have an opinion on every little thing that comes down the pike before all information is available, it always comes back to bite them because we all know that facts change but YouTube is forever.

FOr what it’s worth, MPC, I don’t think I’m smarter than many, many people on here. Educationally, I only have three years of college. I have a high IQ, but most because of natural intelligence, and not so much on anything that I’ve done to accomplish much in life. I grew up on a farm, and we didn’t have the money for college when I got out of school. I started working at one company, and worked there for 39 years. During that time, I took off for the Marine Corps, got an associates degree and an extra year while working full time, and if that wasn’t enough I opened my own business and it grew to the largest of its kind in my city within 5 years. I only had an investment of 10K when I started. My wife never worked outside of the home, so I provided all of the income, so I certainly have never known money. I don’t have the drive to achieve financial success that many do, and my finances show it. I have five children, and 15 grandchildren. I’m proud of my ancestors and their contributions to the history of this country, but I’m about as far as being elistist as one can get.

Why do these potential 2012’candidates love to hog the camera and computer? They have become celebrities. All except Romney who is the only grownup and realizes that just because a camera is in your face, you don’t have to voice an opinion. There is a time for everything.

Yes! finally American people begin to see the right leader for their future,the right man for the right job,the right side of history,the right direction of the country because they have learned a good lesson from last election that they nominee the wrong candidate,they elected the wrong president,they were in the wrong pages of history. Mitt is the true leader,Mitt is the real man,Mitt is the best of all why he is leading now,this is true poll,true number and true lead.

Romney is not a bad guy fundamentally. In many ways, he is quite admirable, especially in the way he’s treated his family and the people around him. He’s no doubt honest and smart and hard working. Nobody really questions that.

But he made a career decision to pretend like he was a hard core conservative, after many decades of being a moderate-to-liberal Republican. The man who said he was an independent during the Reagan era now says he loves Reagan. The man who was once vigorously pro-choice is now steadfastly pro-life. The man who advocated gun control is now a member of the NRA. The flips and the flops have become painful to keep track of. Sometimes I feel bad for the man and the moral compromises he has made to get power.

Who does Romney think he’s fooling? He’s not coming across as genuine or believable. Regular voters see through him. That’s why he lost in 2008, and will lose again in 2012.

Yes! Reagan 2 will comes to replace Carter 2 in 2013,because America don’t want the change from Obama that American people never known the goal of change,change for what? Mitt is the real leader,he is the right man,America!

jerseyrepublican Says:
August 18th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
#157 – Illinois, honestly I just do not like Romney as a person…or at least the person he purports to be! He did some sleezy things last time around

To be honest I have seen everything from every candidate that I don’t know what is sleezy anymore. Or all of them are sleezy.

I don’t think his [Romney’s] credentials are so overwhelmingly better than anybody else’s that he has to be the defacto leader.

How would you characterize them? If not overwhelmingly, would they be significantly better, slightly better, not as accomplished, less than competent. As tight as these early polls are I don’t think there is a de facto leader.

He’s kind of boring and he appears to get into a tizzy when he is questioned during debates.

Fair point. Something he does need to work on.
Remember that our current president was elected purely on flash and emotion

184 – McCain referred to himself as a “conservative” often in the campaign, pretended he opposed the Bush tax cuts for a different reason than he said at the time, and expressed an intention to build a border fence, not to mention constantly pointing to an ACU rating that was bolstered considerably by his actions from 20 plus years ago raising the average for many of his more recent stances. Yes he talked about “straight talk” but he wasn’t being totally himself during the primary, and lets not pretend he was and that Romney was the only one taking on a more conservative tone.

You should start thinking for yourself and start doing your own homework. As a Romney supporter, I don’t know where you’re getting your information. How did you come to the conclusion that Romney isn’t a conservative? The abortion thing cannot even be used as an argument, He does believe that gays should have rights..civil rights just like we all enjoy.

So you just can’t say he’s not conservative without giving examples, that’s getting to be an worn out argument. I don’t think you understand how politics work very well.

202 – sure abortion can be used as an argument. That’s what debate is all about. However, going so far as to say Romney was/is a full-on liberal, well…I haven’t seen anything to justify that statement from Flip.

Sorry that I broke my promise on this thread but we really have roughed this guy up:

Damaging misperceptions
One of the reasons why it has become tougher is due to misperceptions about the president’s plans for reform.

Majorities in the poll believe the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants; would lead to a government takeover of the health system; and would use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions — all claims that nonpartisan fact-checkers say are untrue about the legislation that has emerged so far from Congress.

Forty-five percent think the reform proposals would allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care for the elderly.
That also is untrue: The provision in the House legislation that critics have seized on — raising the specter of “death panels” or euthanasia — would simply allow Medicare to pay doctors for end-of-life counseling, if the patient wishes.

Obama, GOP approval
Obama’s overall approval rating in the poll is 51 percent, a two-point drop from last month and a 10-point decline since April.

Yet perhaps more troubling for the White House as it works to pass health care reform this year is that only 41 percent approve of his handling of health care. By comparison, 47 percent disapprove.

Moreover, just 36 percent believe that Obama’s efforts to reform the health system are a good idea, and only 24 percent think they will result in better quality of health care.

Bill McInturff, the GOP pollster who co-conducted the survey, says these numbers should signal a “cautionary light” for the White House. “There is a ‘go slower’ feel to this data.”

McInturff also observes that these numbers — which come after Obama embarked on a three-state swing (New Hampshire, Montana and Colorado) to hold town halls of his own — suggest that the White House’s counteroffensive was, “at best, break-even.”

“If she loses by 23 points when Obama is having a horrible month and his lowest approvals yet, imagine what she’d lose by if Obama was popular? 30 points? 65 to 35?” His approval rating was not as low in this as in others as Tommy Boy pointed out.

#199 – Calstate, To answer your question about how I would rate Romney’s credentials, I would have to say his credentials are, at most, equal to the others in many aspects. With economic, business issues, he has more credentials…which is a plus for him. Palin has higher credentials in energy and defense…which is a plus for her. Jindal has higher credentials in health care…which is a plus for him. Gingrich has higher credentials in public service and conservative, thinking…so to speak. Many of our potential candidates have great attributes!

“213 – where’d Palin get her defense credentials? Osmosis through her son?”
Haha, that may be part of it, but there is a lot more to it. She headed the National Guard in a crucial state, she has visited troops on the ground in Kosovo and the Middle East. Her foreign policy is the most Conservative of all the candidates (despite Mr. Huckabee’s trip to Israel.) It is not just a few of us who think she is the best at Defense, by a plurality, Republicans who’s number one issue was national security told polsters that their first choice was Mrs. Palin. I realize that Mrs. Palin probably won’t become President, but I would not mind her becoming Secretary of Defense. Certainly, the new big 3 are not bad at Defense, but let’s just say, it is pretty difficult to say that they are better at Defense.

213, 214. I suppose all the candidates have great attributes, but they are not equal, and each differ widely in areas of exptertise.

I don’t accept that Palin has the best defense creds or the most conservative FP. She’s the one who said we might need a timetable in Iraq, and questioned whether Iraq was about oil – both straight-up liberal talking points, OJ. (I don’t suppose you consider those flip-flops, though. Romney is the only guy who does that, right?)

The truth is that Palin was by far a more moderate politician when she did not have designs on the White House. That’s partly how she gained her “mavericky, reformer, take-on-the-good-old-boys persona. She didn’t tow the conservative line. I don’t see how people don’t realize this.

Getting back to FP, I believe it’s tough to make the case that Palin is more prepared or more conservative than Romney. What Romney lacks in actual military experience, he well made up for in doing his homework on the issues. He can speak as intelligently and convincingly as anyone on FP, etc. He’s right on the issues, and as far as I know, never thought Iraq was about oil, or wanted timetables. (Cue Alex)

Overall, I think it’s hard to make a case that anyone is more widely prepared to be POTUS than Romney.

“(I don’t suppose you consider those flip-flops, though. Romney is the only guy who does that, right?)
” Hey, I actually would like Mr. Romney to flip flop and become even more like Mrs. Palin. Let’s just say, some people view time-tables differently than you. Mr. Romney is pretty Conservative, I’ll certainly give you that, but there are a few issues where he could move to the right.

Maybe it’s the other way around. Palin is pro-amnesty, while Romney is not. How about if she becomes more conservative on that? Or perhaps, she should not be so gung-ho on regulation Wall Street. Maybe she should not talk about walking across the aisle, or about campaigning for democrats.

Martha and GetReal, Palin has more defense credentials because of the clearance she has while Governor. You know that. She had one of the highest security clearances than any other Governor due to her strategic location.

Martha loves to take Palin’s statements out of context but if someone take Romney’s out of context then they are the devil? Which is it…do you want to play honest with facts or footloose and fancy free? I can start posting exagerrations of what Romney said all over the web if you like…I’m sure some of them will stick…that is your game isn’t it?

Palin’s job as VP candidate was to take McCain’s stance on these topics and push his agenda…she did that. What she feels about amnesty has never been publicized, as far as I know.

I personally never said that Palin is more Conservative then Romney. I actually don’t think of her as a so-con but I don’t think of Romney as one either.

I understand you do not like the idea that Palin may have more experience than Romney on certain things but the facts tell differently.

“I personally never said that Palin is more Conservative then Romney. I actually don’t think of her as a so-con but I don’t think of Romney as one either.” Actually partly right Jersey. Even though both Mr. Romney and Mrs. Palin are Conservative on Social issues, neither one is true SoCon is the traditional strict sense. Haha, although I’ll concede that Mrs. Palin is a tad more serious than Mr. Romney.

Your comment about the devil was a bit harsh, but yes, it is funny how people can take Mrs. Palin out of context, but we dare not take Mr. Romney out of context.

220. Jersey, Palin’s security clearance meant next to nothing. It does not give her anything remotely close to actual FP experience. She has not studied the issues at all, as far as we can tell. Most people, even her fans like Kristol, admit this. There is no evidence that Palin knows anything at all about FP. Has she made a serious FP speech? Editorial? No. The most she has done is rah rah the military – which is fine, but it doesn’t give her creds.

Palin DID question whether the Iraq war was about oil, and she DID wonder about timetables. These statements were not taken out of context.

There was an interview that was published by a pro-legal immigration group. Palin admitted that she favors “a path to citizenship” for illegals. You can blame McCain if you want, but Palin has never made any statements contrary to her response in the interview before or after.

222. OJ, How do you come to the conclusion that Palin is more serious on social issues than Romney? There isn’t any evidence of that.

Martha, I didn’t say anything about foreign policy, I was talking about defense!!! Nice try at spin though. How do you have any idea what and how much experience her classified security clearance gave her?!?

I understand what she said about the Iraq War and I think you are taking her out of context! Didn’t Romney say something about timetables?

A path to citizenship is not unconservative but I’ll have to look that up on my own beacuse you seem to have a hazy version of the truth when it comes to Palin!

A path to citizenship is amnesty, and it is indeed very unconservative.

FP and defense are so close, especially in the context of our discussion here.

Yes, Romney said that there should be timetables in the context of having goals to meet, but not in the context of pre-mature withdrawal – which is the common understanding of the term. Romney never said we should leave Iraq before the job is done.

“Here’s the deal: First off, Sarah Palin plays no role as the commander of the Alaska National Guard outside of the state. She never has, she never will. The actual commander–Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell–said so himself:

Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin “extremely responsive and smart” and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.
But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.

According to Global Security, “the governor commands AKNG [Alaska National Guard] while it is not in active federal service. The principal executive officer of DMVA [Department of Military and Veterans Affairs], the adjutant general, is an appointee of the governor.”

It should be noted, however, that the current adjutant general, Gen. Campbell, was appointed in 2003–more than three years before Palin took office. So she didn’t even make the decision determining who would run the Alaska National Guard.”

When asked by ABC News’ Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America” if he believes there should be a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Romney replied, “Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement.”

The former governor went on to explain, “You don’t want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you’re going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police and the leadership of the Iraqi government.”

When asked a similar question on CBS’s “Early Show,” Romney responded, “Well, I wouldn’t publish [a timetable] for my adversaries to see,” advocating instead “a series of milestones, timetables as well, to measure how well they’re doing.”

“But,” Romney said, “that’s not something you publish for the enemy to understand, because of course they could just lay in the weeds until the time that you’re gone. So these are the kinds of things you do privately, not necessarily publicly.”

When asked if Romney’s Tuesday morning show comments represented something new for the Republican presidential hopeful, Romney spokesman Kevin Madden described them as “consistent with his previous statements about milestones and metrics towards success in Iraq.”

So, the word timetables was used in context of success in Iraq, not withdrawing before the job was complete.

Nice find, Martha…I found another article that is the complete opposite about her duties and her briefings. I do not have the time to link that right now but I swear I will tomorrow morning. Thanks for the debate and goodnight.